Forum Topic

I think it's wrong to generalise in my view - I've worked alongside some excellent Senior Officers in my time who've worked extremely hard and never shirked away from their duties (although I appreciate that residents may often not agree with how they carry out those duties).  Equally I've worked alongside a couple (very much in the minority) of Senior Officers who in my view failed both residents and the Officers they were supposed to manage/assist.  On the other end of the scale I've worked with numerous Officers who would be on the lower end of the pay scale who were absolutely fantastic at their jobs and deserved both better financial reward for their abilities and commitment and to be more 'respected' by Senior Officers than they were, as they would be a worthy credit/asset to any company or organisation.  Yet on the other hand I'm increasingly coming across a culture amongst relatively young/new Council staff where everything they do revolves around performance targets rather than interacting with the public.Like for instance they'll find the time to write up a report on a planning application and get it agreed and signed off by their bosses between Monday and Thursday, but despite making 3 calls to the Officer during the same period about that application they don't return your calls and when on the Thursday they finally do (after you've had to threaten to complain) they then say that they've been too busy to make one telephone call, which simply doesn't either add up or show any kind of courtesy.The performance target culture that central government has forced upon Councils has everything to answer for in my view.

Adam Beamish ● 6159d

A fair question.  Firstly the Conservative leadership is very close to us on Community Cohesion, and whilst there is still much to do we have made very considerable progress in this department, achieving Beacon Status for our efforts.  Building a community in which people do not just "tolerate" each other but rather celebrate differences whilst placing greater emphasis upon what unites us as residents of a great borough is very fundamental to everything we aspire to achieve.On Community Empowerment we are not yet where I would like to be, but we have made strides and this will accelerate over the coming months.  As imminently as next Tuesday a resolution will go before Borough Council tying the authority into a six-month program which will fundamentally alter the way we approach liaision and engagement with our residents.  We have signed up to the Sustainable Communities Act and have commissioned an IDeA report into how we engage with residents which will provide the basis of much that we do in the future.By way of a comparator it is worth remembering where we were in 2006.  As Lead Member for Housing I spent nearly a year just trying to explain to a bitterly hostile coalition of Labour politicians and Housing chiefs thevery basic concept of all tenants on our estates having an equal right to participate in the management of their communities.  Now, whilst the old mentality returns to haunt us on the rarest of occasions, I really don't think I'm being naive in expressing my sense of a widely-held acceptance that this is indeed a better way.In our own wards, Paul Fisher in particular has done some truly excellent work in bringing together various community groups on a number of projects amid an atmosphere of common purpose and enthusiasm, identifying funding and providing leadership and inspiration.  The new mentality has enabled us to work closely with residents' groups which were kept away from us - and each other - in the past and the result has been a sleeker, smarter community-based operation which is able to challenge the bureaucracy where necessary from a position of knowledge and with sometimes breathtaking speed, efficiency and attention to detail.On top of this, since May Jon Hardy (not Paul) has been leading the line on Mogden in a way that has never been done before, placing our officers in the sometimes unfamiliar territory of actually being told, rather than asked, what the administration's priorities are.  The residents have yet to see the fruits of his work but you should listen to me when I predict that the whole organisation will have its attitude right over Mogden in every tiniest detail before the next budget is debated at Borough Council.

Phil Andrews ● 6159d

"As for "keeping their coalition partners happy", was the fact that Tory members of the SDC voted for Mogden expansion supposed to be an example of this?"Robin - I believe that it has already been made perfectly clear in the press and on various forums that the Tories who voted for expansion were either misinformed, ignorant, stupid or misled by Council Officers and Thames Water. Some of them had never even set foot on Mogden. They hadn't studied the facts and they clearly didn't appreciate the problem or couldn't be bothered. Some are of the view that they performed their cowardly U-turn as soon as their legal advisor mentioned that if they refused the application, Thames 'could' appeal and Hounslow 'could' end up paying legal costs to defend such an appeal. As soon as they heard that 'money' could come into play they couldn't contain themselves in rushing across the floor to back Labours' Jon Cooper's move to approve (seconded by Labours' Ruth Cadbury) The most disappointing factor is that whilst these Tory idiots can 'almost' be forgiven for their open ignorance of the real facts and/or their lack of understanding, Cllr Cadbury has full understanding of the situation, has had tremendous respect from residents for her past handling of Thames and her open, honest and fair chairing of residents liaison meetings, yet she chose to second the move by Cllr Cooper, who clearly just wanted to get home. Cllr Cadbury, together with the late Cllr Carmen devoted much time to this issue and residents have always expressed their appreciation of her efforts. At both SDC meetings she asked all the right questions of Thames, she grilled them and cross-examined their replies and received all the wrong answers. And after all that she voted approval of an application which clearly is not sustainable. Now if that isn't petty politics of the lowest form I don't know what is?  But hey.....what do I know about politics....I'm just one of a few thousand residents trying to improve the environment which affects several thousand residents and tens of thousand visitors, commuters and RFU spectators who visit this Borough and want to vomit.

Steve Taylor ● 6160d

At Last night's Executive Meeting the Leader of the Council announced the following:"Members will be aware of issues that have arisen recently about the detailed expense claims of members of this Council. This is in the context of wider public concerns about expenses claimed by elected representatives, particularly Members of Parliament.  I am clear that the proper approach to this has to be one of complete openness and transparency; the public we serve have a right to know what expenses we claim in order to carry out our democratic duties effectively.  To do other than this simply creates an atmosphere of suspicion and lack of trust. I have requested the Chief Executive to arrange for individual expense claims of all members to be published on the Council’s website.  It is also proper that our residents should know what expenses have been claimed by the most senior council officers so these will be published at the same time. I have asked that publication take place no later than 1st September 2009; naturally members will be given the opportunity to view their own claims prior to publication. Members will also know that this matter raises wider issues about how we manage and respond to Freedom of Information requests.  Whilst current systems appear adequate this is an opportune moment to review their workings and ensure they are efficient, fit for purpose and fully compliant with Information Commission best practice recommendations. I have asked the Chief Executive to commission a review with the following terms of reference:‘To review all aspects of the arrangements in the London Borough of Hounslow for dealing with requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 taking into account the legislative framework, experiences of other public bodies and established best practice; and to make appropriate recommendations.’I envisage a report on the review’s findings being presented to the Executive this autumn.”I believe this is a proper approach to the question of expenses: doubtless this new system will need refining but it is a genuine attempt to provide transparency to members of the public whose money it really is after all.Jon Hardy

Jon Hardy ● 6161d

Peter Pitt has been living in Northern Spain - possibly since Feb 08 (when his Portsmouth mileage claim started).  Not quite sure how well he is able to represent Bedfont residents unles they all have top-level IT!Anyway, about me . . . From 2002 - 2006 I was Hounslow's Lead Executive member for Heathrow Issues - opposing expansion.  I shifted our policy away from legal challenge - over £1m fighting the Terminal 5 Inquiry gained the borough no mitigation whatsoever. We decided in 2002 to start taking the needs of Hounslow's residents to the heart of government.  From then I used every opportunity to use our Labour Party contacts to get the messages of the impact of Heathrow into Government, and to key opinion formers - my attendance at Labour Party conference was, and remains, central to that aim.There is no doubt that this influencing work we carried out over 4 years under our administration, and continuing now, was massively beneficial to Hounslow’s residents; three specific examples of successful outcomes are * The Aviation White paper resulted in £25m of BAA funds being set aside to insulate schools and community buildings around Heathrow, the vast majority of this is being spent in our borough.  * We lobbied extensively at every stage in the passage of the Civil Aviation Bill, which at the end resulted in a block on the expansion of night flights * We got Runway alternation retained indefinitely.OK so we didn't stop Runway 3, but we have certainly been part of raising the bar, to make it more difficult to go ahead.  We have also ensured that when national politicians, civil servants and journalists think of communities around Heathrow, their first thought is no longer Hillingon, but Hounslow.Labour Party Conferenc:Hounslow’s professional public affairs consultants had advised that our most effective (and cost-efficient) way to talk directly and informally to a large number of Government decision-makers, and other key opinion formers in one hit, was for me as a Labour Councillor to go to the Labour Party Conference - not as a party delegate but as a representative for my borough. This was an especially important time as the Civil Aviation Bill was about to start its passage through Parliament, and the RANCH report on the impact of aircraft noise on children’s learning had just been published in the Lancet. At the conference I had valuable conversations with (and gave written briefings to) the following people: * Karen Buck MP - Aviation Minister * Jacqui Smith MP - Schools Minister * Stephen Hale - Special Advisor to Secretary of State for the Environment * Lord Adonis - Education Minister * Des Turner MP - Environment Audit Committee * Fiona Mactaggert MP for Slough * Lord Brook - Lords backbench committee on Transport and PLP transport group * Mike Shaw - times Educational Supplement - interested in Schools insulation * Christian Woolmar - leading independent writer on transport * An FT journalist writing about the Gate Gourmet dispute and employment in and around Heathrow * Nikki Gavron - Deputy Mayor of London * Murad Qureshi - GLA member with responsibility for * Val Shawcross - GLA member * Carol Barboni - Stop Stansted Expansion I participated in a round-table discussion with leading players in the aviation debate including Elliot Morley MP - Environment Minister, Lord Soley - Future Heathrow, BAA, leading Environment and Transport writers and experts. I also met many MPs and Councillors from London whose areas were getting increasingly affected by growing aircraft noise (many have subsequently joined 2M), and from Scotland and the north of England - who are now taking up the campaign for High Speed Rail as an alternative to short-haul flying. It would have taken enormous time and effort to gain anything like the same spread of access if indeed it was possible at all, by not attending this conference, and I am confident that my efforts were of considerable value to Hounslow’s campaign.  I spent 4 days in Brighton at this conference, in the cheapest room I could find for those days within 5 miles of the conference centre.  It was at a Guest House and the price reflects the mark up that is always applied during major conferences when accommodation is at a premium.  As I was working with another organisation that I was representing at two fringe meetings, I was able to save money for the Council by sharing costs.  The cost of the Guest House was split equally; I claimed my petrol from Hounslow, and my delegate pass fee from the other organisation as a straightforward way to apportion other joint costs. In order to ensure that you are comparing like with like, it is worth noting that there was no simple mechanism then for these hotel and train bookings to be made for me by the Council, hence they appear on my expenses claims.  I would be interested if this is still the practice or whether Council staff members now do such bookings - such as the MIPIM conference in Cannes (no travel or accommodation costs appear on Cllr Thompson or Reid's exepnses claims, but they will have been paid by the Council).At the Local Government Conference in Harrogate last week - 7 senior Councillors stayed in a £160 pn hotel.  I was the one opposition member allowed to attend this important national event but only on the basis that I booked my own accommodation. So a train fare and my (cheaper) hotel bill will appear on my next expense claim.  A full examination of the cost of Councillors should include this direction of probing.  But it would also be helpful if thee costs are justified - in the way that I have just explained what I achieved at my attendance at Labour Party Conference in 2005.. . .  well you did ask Jim!

Ruth Cadbury ● 6165d

Adam,Actually, I feel quite comfortable about the £13,000 spend in Cannes, South of France by two very capable Hounslow Councillors including Peter Thompson the Leader. Their serious minded natures and conscientious endeavours wouldn't be distracted by topless women on the nearby beach or the champagne cocktails at the Carlton Hotel I don't suppose.  The "party" of three had a big mission..to network, so I understand, with key people with a view to bringing property investment ideas into Hounslow (to plug the hole in the Town Centre perhaps.)And no doubt if the budgeted amount of £13,000 was not all spent, I'm sure the balance would have been returned.Being responsible for Hounslow's annual £600,000,000+ spend (or 3 billion in 5 years)(a £3 billion pile in £50 notes reaching the 29,000 feet top of Mt Everest)..breathe..the three have a challenging task to get things done for Hounslow and to get it right.oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooWikipedia's MIPIM entry reads thus:MIPIM is a market for international property trade. It takes place annually in Cannes, France in March. In 2004, MIPIM attracted 15,157 participants from 67 countries.In 2005 there were 1,903 exhibiting companies spread over 17,000 sq. m and representing 67 countries, which translated into a 6% rise in the number of participants and a 12% rise in the number of end-users and investors present at the market.MIPIM is designed for senior-level decision makers within the real estate market who want to develop business within their domestic and international markets.It is a global marketplace that gives people the opportunity to connect with key players in the industry, from investors to end-users and local governments to international corporations. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooKnowing that Ken Livington spent £40,000,000 on Consultants to study the feasibilty of the Ealing /Acton tramway...a ridiculous scheme that would have cost £650,000,000 to build..a £13,000 trip to MIPIM sounds good common sense to me...particularly noting who went.In contrast, trips to political conferences should be paid for by delegates themselves surely..or by the political party.  If Ruth Cadbury spent 25% of her Conference time grabbing the ear of important ministers..fine...pay her 25% of the cost. But £400? from us?We know that speaking to BAA, BA, the Unions, Mrs Keen, Mr Keen, and the Government must be a frustrating job when the Heathrow NOs are being fobbed off.  Conferences might be a handy introduction.  But what's the point when ones MP is going to vote AGAINST the deemed majority wishes of the community. Let's have the money back..and give it to worthy causes.

Jim Lawes ● 6165d